fall testing update david abrams assistant commissioner for standards, assessment, & reporting...
Post on 29-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Fall Testing Update
David Abrams
Assistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment, & Reporting
Middle Level Liaisons & Support Schools Network
November 16, 2006
ELA & Math 3-8 Test Uses
Signal Priority Content Evaluate student progress towards meeting State Learning Standards Inform Instruction Determine AIS needs Accountability System: AYP
calculations
3-8 Testing: Vertically Moderated Standards (VMS)
Student progress is measured from grade-to-grade relative to proficiency in meeting the Standards rather than in terms of scale scores on exams.
Measurement experts say this method is more reliable than vertical scaling for monitoring student progress given the test design specified in the NYS RFP.
3-8 Testing: Vertically Moderated Standards (VMS)
VMS exams do not require overlapping items; test forms are “thinner” and testing times are shorter.
Because items on each test are developed only for a single grade-level, it provides better content coverage for each grade.
2006 Grade 3-8 English For the first time, we can see that the decline in student achievement begins after the 5th grade. This shows the percentage of students meeting all the standards. Schools, teachers, and parents can now see how students performed at each grade.
69
.0%
68
.6%
67
.1%
60
.4%
56
.4%
49
.3% 6
1.5
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Number TestedGrade 3 = 185,603Grade 4 = 190,951Grade 5 = 201,262Grade 6 = 204,249Grade 7 = 210,735Grade 8 = 212,320
2006 Grade 3-8 English The percentage of students with serious academic difficulties (Level 1) does not change significantly at each grade.
8.6
%
9.0
%
6.4
%
7.3
%
8.1
%
9.5
%
8.1
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1
61.5
%
45.7
%
61.4
%
65.3
% 74.7
% 85.5
%
69.0
%
58.9
%
49.2
% 61.7
%
62.5
% 75.3
% 87.0
%
68.6
%
56.7
%
43.7
%
58.8
%
63.5
% 74.9
% 87.1
%
67.1
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2006 English Language Arts (ELA)Performance in Grades 3, 4, and 5 by Need/Resource Capacity Category
In each N/RC category the variations across Grade 3 through 5 were small. The pattern of increases or decreases varied by N/RC category.
2006 English Language Arts Performance in Grades 6, 7, and 8 by Need/Resource Capacity Category
In every N/RC category, 8th graders performed less well than 6th graders. The decrease was smaller in Average and Low Need Districts than in High Need Districts.
48.6
%
37.4
%
51.2
%
56.0
%
68.8
%
82.8
%
60.4
%
44.2
%
29.5
%
44.7
%
51.3
%
65.8
%
80.3
%
56.4
%
36.6
%
24.2
%
38.3
%
44.7
%
57.9
%
74.7
%
49.3
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2006 Mathematics Total PublicAcross Grades 3-8, almost 66 percent of students met the Mathematics Learning Standards. Students in grades 3 and 4 were more likely to meet the Standards than older students.
80
.5%
77
.9%
68
.4%
60
.4%
55
.6%
53
.9% 6
5.8
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Number TestedGrade 3 = 201,956Grade 4 = 202,791Grade 5 = 209,242Grade 6 = 209,636Grade 7 = 217,308Grade 8 = 219,414
2006 Mathematics Total PublicAbout 11 percent of students scored at Level 1. The percentage of students scoring at Level 1 increased at every grade level except grade 7.
6.4
%
7.5
%
10
.3%
13
.4%
13
.2%
15
.0%
11
.1%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1
75.3
%
52.5
%
75.0
%
79.5
%
86.4
%
93.2
%
70.9
%
56.1
%
71.2
%
76.3
% 84.3
% 92.4
%
61.3
%
35.8
%
59.0
%
64.0
% 75.4
% 87.1
%
38.9
%
20.7
%
51.9
%
66.1
%
52.7
%
31.3
%
47.2
% 55.2
% 67.3
%
81.9
%
43.9
%
19.9
%
39.7
% 51.4
%
66.7
%
81.7
%
39.5
%
82.0
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2006 MathematicsPerformance by Grade Level and Need/Resource Capacity Category
In each N/RC category, a substantially smaller percentage of students in grade 8 than grade 3 met the standards. The Low Need and Average Districts maintained their sixth-grade performance through grade 8.
3-8 Testing : “Thin (3, 5, 7) vs. Fat (4, 6, 8)” Forms
Tests are on different scales; since we did not create a vertical scale, no scaling was done across grade levels, (i.e. 3, 5, & 7 were not equated with 4, 6, and 8).
Grade-To-Grade comparisons can be done by examining the percentage of students in different proficiency categories not in terms of growth in scale scores.
3-8 Testing Topics: “Thin (3, 5, 7) vs. Fat (4, 6, 8)” Forms
Regardless of test form, all tests are aligned with NYS Learning Standards and meet blueprint specifications; as such they are valid assessment tools.
3-8 Testing Topics: At Large
Data Analysis Return of Test Results for 2007: Still
using Post-Equating Model; & Prior to end of academic Year
Grow Issues/Local Data Warehouses Accountability Growth Models
USDOE Peer Review Update
NCLB requires that, by the 2005-06 school year, states have in place: challenging academic content and
achievement standards in reading/language arts and math; and
an aligned assessment system that measures student achievement towards meeting those standards in Grades 3-8 and once in Grades 10-12.
Goal – to enable all students to meet challenging academic content and achievement standards
USDOE Peer Review Update
Title I, Part A accountability requires States to determine AYP, in part, by annually administering tests “aligned with challenging academic content and student academic achievement standards” in “reading or language arts” to all students.
Peer Review – NYS Results
On June 27, 2006, SED received a letter from Assistant Secretary Henry L. Johnson stating that NYS must provide additional evidence to meet NCLB requirements.
USDOE has determined that NYS is not incompliance with NCLB with respect to: NYSESLAT Assessment of ungraded students Alternative assessment for students with disabilities
NYS must come into full compliance by end of 2006-07 school year.
Peer Review – Important Memos
August 2006: Jean Stevens-LEP/ELL Student Statewide Assessment Policy/Title I Requirements
August 2006: Jean Stevens & Rebecca Cort-Revised Guidelines for Participation of Students with Disabilities in State Assessments for 2006-2007
Peer Review – Important Memos
August 2006: David Abrams & James DeLorenzo-Important Changes Regarding Administration of the New York State Alternate Assessment for 2006-07
Graduation Rate: Board of Regents Discussion
Current graduation-rate standard for accountability is 55%, lower even than the 64% 4 year graduation rate achieved by the 2001 Total Cohort.
Higher Standard will work to improve graduation rates in 2 ways: more schools will be required to raise their rates; and lowest performing schools will be required to increase graduations at a faster rate.
2001 Total Cohort Graduation Rate After 4 Years
GraduationRate Interval
Number of Schools
Percent ofSchools
Below 55% 185 20.4%
55-59% 29 3.2%
60-64% 33 3.6%
65-69% 63 7.0%
70-74% 84 9.3%
75-79% 109 12.0%
80-84% 122 13.5%
85-89% 127 14.0%
90-94% 97 10.7%
95-100% 57 6.3
Total 906 100%
See Regents Item Closing the Achievement Gap: Setting a Target for High School Graduation Rates
October 2006
The Relationship Between Graduation and Attendance Rates: 2001 Cohort
High School Daily Average Attendance Rate
High School Graduation Rate
<83.0 34.6%
83.1-88.4 51.2%
88.5-91.7 65.4%
91.8-93.0 71.5%
93.1-94.0 78.7%
94.1-94.7 82.7%
94.8-95.1 84.7%
95.2-95.7 86.4%
95.8-96.3 87.3%
96.4-100 87.2%
See Regents Item Closing the Achievement Gap: Setting Targets for High School Attendance: October 2006 Regents Meeting
Open Dialog
Questions/Comments
top related